Unpopular opinion

[jburtt]

I realize this will probably be met with resistance and hate, but has anyone else felt that the fight against losing guns isn't worth it sometimes? I have sold off most all of my guns in the past several years. I honestly don't miss most of them. I miss a couple really cool ones, but really, it isn't that big of a part of my daily life, and if it comes to the point where we have to give them all up I wouldn't be that mad. I've never needed them, and I've been in very bad situations. I feel like a lot of people romanticize the idea of being a hero in a cowboy shootout type of situation. I've had my concealed carry license, open carried, etc and always kinda felt like I was being paranoid. Frankly, I'm more likely to die in a fiery car crash and I don't wear a helmet a fire suit every time I drive. Is the passion about it being taken away more about the control than the actual thing?

Read More

 

[Peanut]

I feel the same way about voting in a deep blue state, but I vote just the same.
First, a handgun saved me from a home invasion not too many years ago. The police didn't even respond, since nothing happened. But it most certainly would have if I had not been armed and ready.
Second, I live to hunt birds behind my well trained dogs and the government's suggestion that my forty year old Remington 1100 is an "assault weapon" tells me where The Agenda is headed.
Third, you are letting the forces of evil win. No, I'm not overstating it. We had a Governor criminalize a family of six walking outside as a group illegal just four years ago. A year later rioters took over entire cities, including parts of Albuquerque, because police were afraid to act. And at every intersection the only thing that prevents dedicated criminals from turning from panhandlers into toll collectors is their uncertainty of whether the driver next to them is able to protect himself.

Most instances of self-defense are never recorded or reported. If a tree doesn't fall does it still not make a sound? How far would a manipulative government push if it wasn't afraid of an eventual response? What part of this town would be controlled by outlaws if they were not afraid of armed citizens?

 

[Sunky Heribeck]

Ridding oneself of firearms because government makes it difficult to own them, just lets them know that what they are doing is working. This just emboldens them to continue to erode the liberties bestowed upon all US citizens.

The second amendment gives the people the right to keep and bear arms. Yet some believe it is just fine for governments to regulate this right.

What if they went after the fifteenth amendment and wanted to regulate what color someone had to be to vote?

Or the thirteenth amendment, making it okay to force someone to work for free.

These things wouldn't go over very well with most anyone, yet the second is trampled on daily and the ones who cheer this, are the ones who are benefitting the most from the freedoms they enjoy, due to mostly armed militias that fought and died to ensure these freedoms.

So, I say, if you choose to part with your firearms, do so because you truly want to and not because you feel someone is making you.

The harder they try to make it, the more I acquire.

 

[ynotAZ]

It's unfortunate but that is exactly what the government is looking for, "it just aint worth the hassle anymore". That is exactly how UK all but eliminated private firearms ownership. They incrementally passed laws that made it more burdensome and more costly to own firearms. Ultimately, the majority of owners that remained were the wealthy and powerful. When it came to the political vote for eliminating private ownership, the wealthy and powerful, had security details, state protection or they could afford to hire a detail for any outing. They knew they would never handle a firearm on their own anyhow, so they all supported outlawing private access to firearms.

That's the reason you see things like universal background checks, red flag laws, required locked storage, waiting periods, liability insurance, elimination of outdoor recreational shooting, etc. all an effort to make it more burdensome to buy or own a firearm. It may not be you, but your grandchildren might look at the firearms they inherited from grandparents and just turn them in because it too big a hassle and there is little of a remaining private market.

 

[jburtt]

I feel the same way about voting in a deep blue state, but I vote just the same.
First, a handgun saved me from a home invasion not too many years ago. The police didn't even respond, since nothing happened. But it most certainly would have if I had not been armed and ready.
Second, I live to hunt birds behind my well trained dogs and the government's suggestion that my forty year old Remington 1100 is an "assault weapon" tells me where The Agenda is headed.
Third, you are letting the forces of evil win. No, I'm not overstating it. We had a Governor criminalize a family of six walking outside as a group illegal just four years ago. A year later rioters took over entire cities, including parts of Albuquerque, because police were afraid to act. And at every intersection the only thing that prevents dedicated criminals from turning from panhandlers into toll collectors is their uncertainty of whether the driver next to them is able to protect himself.

Most instances of self-defense are never recorded or reported. If a tree doesn't fall does it still not make a sound? How far would a manipulative government push if it wasn't afraid of an eventual response? What part of this town would be controlled by outlaws if they were not
afraid of armed citizens?

I don't know, I see the passion, I do. But honestly, these are worst case scenario things across the board. Again, like I mentioned originally, the fireproof suit while driving to pick up milk. The government is not afraid of gun owners. That in my mind is a fairytale that people like to perpetuate, but when it comes down to an anti government movement, small arms will not be the tool that turns tides. Makeshift explosives, guerilla warfare tactics, and a whole lot of luck would be the only chance the little guy would stand. Frankly, having spent a lot of time with criminals, they aren't afraid of armed citizens. Those are just targets they can also get guns from when they rob them. A lot more guns stolen than law abiding gun owners thwarting would be robbers.

Ridding oneself of firearms because government makes it difficult to own them, just lets them know that what they are doing is working. This just emboldens them to continue to erode the liberties bestowed upon all US citizens.

The second amendment gives the people the right to keep and bear arms. Yet some believe it is just fine for governments to regulate this right.

What if they went after the fifteenth amendment and wanted to regulate what color someone had to be to vote?

Or the thirteenth amendment, making it okay to force someone to work for free.

These things wouldn't go over very well with most anyone, yet the second is trampled on daily and the ones who cheer this, are the ones who are benefitting the most from the freedoms they enjoy, due to mostly armed militias that fought and died to ensure these freedoms.

So, I say, if you choose to part with your firearms, do so because you truly want to and not because you feel someone is making you.

The harder they try to make it, the more I acquire.

I don't like the idea of more control over anything. Guns or otherwise. But I just feel like the loss of this right is inevitable, just a matter of when, not if.

It's unfortunate but that is exactly what the government is looking for, "it just aint worth the hassle anymore". That is exactly how UK all but eliminated private firearms ownership. They incrementally passed laws that made it more burdensome and more costly to own firearms. Ultimately, the majority of owners that remained were the wealthy and powerful. When it came to the political vote for eliminating private ownership, the wealthy and powerful, had security details, state protection or they could afford to hire a detail for any outing. They knew they would never handle a firearm on their own anyhow, so they all supported outlawing private access to firearms.

That's the reason you see things like universal background checks, red flag laws, required locked storage, waiting periods, liability insurance, elimination of outdoor recreational shooting, etc. all an effort to make it more burdensome to buy or own a firearm. It may not be you, but your grandchildren might look at the firearms they inherited from grandparents and just turn them in because it too big a hassle and there is little of a remaining private market.

Now I'm not saying its great, but looking at the UK, if they still had private firearm ownership, what would have changed for the climate currently? I'm not advocating for loss of rights, but if it happens, people that want to defend themselves will just do so differently.

 

[ynotAZ]

Now I'm not saying its great, but looking at the UK, if they still had private firearm ownership, what would have changed for the climate currently? I'm not advocating for loss of rights, but if it happens, people that want to defend themselves will just do so differently.

Perhaps but availability of alternate methods of protection doesn't explain the precipitous rise in violent crime. What does explain it is that the common law-abiding citizen thinks they will defend themselves, family and property using some form of rules. The criminal has no rules and will use anything at hand as a weapon. The one equalizer was a firearm. That's gone, now criminals rule and they will get and use firearms.

 

[Peanut]

Perhaps but availability of alternate methods of protection doesn't explain the precipitous rise in violent crime. What does explain it is that the common law-abiding citizen thinks they will defend themselves, family and property using some form of rules. The criminal has no rules and will use anything at hand as a weapon. The one equalizer was a firearm. That's gone, now criminals rule and they will get and use firearms.

Well put. Our caretaker government cannot (or will not) control the supply of Guatemalan short order cooks coming across the border. If our government beats every Glock in the country into plowshares (not recommended as they are poor material for that) there will be no shortage of handguns in the criminal world. Whether smuggled in or made as "ghost guns" we're still dealing with pretty simple technology that anyone with a Harbor Freight and a Home Depot can replicate. What year were 1911's invented?

 

[ynotAZ]

Criminals will get guns, they manage in prison, and they don't even have a Home Depot there.

Internet videos instruct on how to build an AK47 out of a shovel and this was good enough to take out a Prime Minister.
.

 

[Francis]

Even if they don't get guns, they'll use other methods to their disposal. Until we have a cultural shift away criminals having more rights than non criminals nothing will change

 

[smaug]

I realize this will probably be met with resistance and hate, but has anyone else felt that the fight against losing guns isn't worth it sometimes? I have sold off most all of my guns in the past several years. I honestly don't miss most of them. I miss a couple really cool ones, but really, it isn't that big of a part of my daily life, and if it comes to the point where we have to give them all up I wouldn't be that mad. I've never needed them, and I've been in very bad situations. I feel like a lot of people romanticize the idea of being a hero in a cowboy shootout type of situation. I've had my concealed carry license, open carried, etc and always kinda felt like I was being paranoid. Frankly, I'm more likely to die in a fiery car crash and I don't wear a helmet a fire suit every time I drive. Is the passion about it being taken away more about the control than the actual thing?

 

[smaug]

You should do you, and everyone else can be fine with it. But realize, YES, it is about giving up contol of your life, your options, and essentially your freedoms. Remember all Law is based on Property Law. The first amendment is about whether your thoughts and words are your property. The second about whether your thoughts, your words, your life, and your freedoms are worth defending. Against whom? Who cares... anybody or anything... it's all the same in the end. And those "Property rights" are most often incrementally encroached because "It's only a little thing in my mind, not a big part of my life" until it isn't a "little thing".

 

[jburtt]

You should do you, and everyone else can be fine with it. But realize, YES, it is about giving up contol of your life, your options, and essentially your freedoms. Remember all Law is based on Property Law. The first amendment is about whether your thoughts and words are your property. The second about whether your thoughts, your words, your life, and your freedoms are worth defending. Against whom? Who cares... anybody or anything... it's all the same in the end. And those "Property rights" are most often incrementally encroached because "It's only a little thing in my mind, not a big part of my life" until it isn't a "little thing".

That is a fair opinion, if not reasonably farfetched. Seems like fear-mongering more than a likely outcome. I can see the logic behind it, but that is like saying every infringement is just a step toward totalitarianism. Like a legal age to buy cigarettes leading to the ban of all tobacco products.

 

[smaug]

Not really farfetched if you look at history, our own and world history... Like the "legal age" thing... When I was 18, a lot of my friends were being drafted and sent off to Vietnam, a few did not return. So the Gov't was forced to change the legal age to vote to 18. After all, If you were sent by the Gov to kill and die at 18, you should be allowed to vote. Many States and juristictions have a variety of "legal age" restrictions for one thing or another. Perfect examples abound in our own history, but you actually have to research it because I don't have time here... Did you vote on any of those??? Worldwide, it is a basic tenet that the a Gov't does what it wants and you have to fight it, hopefully through the courts and the ballot box , to prevent "unwelcome" things from happening. Historically that is the rule rather than than the exception. And in history it is obvious that the old proverb "if you give them an inch, they will take a mile" applies especially to Gov't actions. (I really don't have to enumerate what happenned in 1930's Germany with a democratically elected government, and that is only one egregious example in a myriad of examples, again too much to go into). If you think the people have power here, then you are wearing blinders, those with money have the power (look at the current crop of candidates that will actually stand for election) to influence and swing elections and issues in their favor. Both front runners for president are wealthy, and have wealthy supporters. It akes a lot of money and grassroots support from the people at large to get over that hump. And thankfully we don't live in a true Democracy, where 50+% of the popular vote can force 50-% of the population to toe their line.

 

[ynotAZ]

WOW, farfetched, all one has to do is look back a couple years.

We were told Covid 19 was a civilization ending event. families were not allowed to be with dying loved ones, attend wedding with more than 10 family members, go to restaurants, attend funerals, keep small businesses open, jeep your job, and neighbors were scared into turning in their neighbors and even friends. Our government withheld treatment because "there was no effective treatment". Medical practitioners were threatened with loss of license if they prescribed treatment, or a pharmacist filled the prescription. A large portion of the population was forced to accept an untried inoculation containing a new method of delivery mRNA which we now know is forever a marker in your system, does not stay at the injection site as we were told, and a court recently ruled was illegally administered as a vaccine. All this over what turned out to be a bad case of the flu released on us by China.

The lesson learned; China knows they can control the world through the manipulation of world health organizations without firing a shot and no repercussions. Even if the release was an accident it turned into an experiment of national control. Our government learned it could control the entire population through the use of the press, selective release of information, and useful idiots who had broad influence in the public. Canada learned they could easily control protest by cutting off digital access to funds. I'm certain other governments around the world learned similar lessons.

Imagine if the US had already switched to digital currency and immediately, you had no access to food, water, and energy. Ah but it can't happen here, well DOJ is calling parents of school children domestic terrorists, FBI has infiltrated the Catholic church, unelected officials are writing laws with threat of felony prosecution, federal laws exist with little to no quantifiable definition, so vague or conflicting that a Heritage foundation study says the average American violates 3 federal laws per day without knowing it.

People say "who cares, they will never enforce that law". Well the federal government will use two principals that I call Capone and Flynn. First the Capone principal; when you become a target, they don't care what for they will get you on any one of the typical three per-day violation Americans commit. Then the Flynn principal; they don't even care if they win in court, you will be bankrupt, lose your home, your family, your friends, end up living in a carboard box under a freeway overpass, and likely have to plead guilty to a lesser charge just to get out, and thereafter be labeled as GUILTY on job application, rental applications, loan applications etc.

But, other than that, everything is pretty "farfetched".

 

[smaug]

So, like I said at the beginning of this thread, you do you... Don't really care about your misguided opinions, after all they are just your opinions, and there is at least 1 sitting in every chair. Education and awareness of both recent and historical precedent is not something I am ready to elucidate in this thread, but individuals need to actually do their own research. Take the opinion off the throne and do the research, it just takes an open mind to see. All I really care about is what guns and related items you are selling and the price. If you are "selling" acquiescence to Gov't overreach, then you are not in the correct forum, and I will ignore this thread.

 

[Whisky Tahoe]

I realize this will probably be met with resistance and hate, but has anyone else felt that the fight against losing guns isn't worth it sometimes? I have sold off most all of my guns in the past several years. I honestly don't miss most of them.

Southwest Firearms proudly supports firearm related discussion. After selling your guns, does the forum serve a purpose?
No hate here but I am scratching my head.

OK so Firearms and Government is such a broad topic it is very difficult to describe without specifics. Too easy to talk past each other.

Automatic Weapons? Collectors and Clubs with legal automatic weapons are great fun. Despite earlier harassment, the ATF senior administration admitted the legal FFLs & transfers were not a significant source of crime.
Do I think SBRs should be NFA? No but I'm ok with not owning one. Suppressors? Yes I own.
So not everyone sees the value of machine guns but the legal ones do not deserve any disrespect.

50 Cal? Never used in a crime but touted as a win for gun control whenever a ban comes up.
Again, I choose not to own one simply because I don't practice extreme long range shooting enough to warrant a collection.
I would oppose attempts to restrict these without cause. Gun ranges in the vicinity of neighborhoods is an example.
Even if the range has been there before the neighborhoods were, I can concede that 50cal strays represent may represent a larger threat than 22lr.

You would have to agree that California isn't safer because they made 50 cal hard to own.

Here's an example of firearms discussion with the government.
I have had the pleasure of meeting @ynotAZ in person when addressing the BLM and a few other government employees.
The government staff were very polite in their conversation even thanked us for the material that we presented, but they were rather patronizing.
I would have sworn a few of them agreed with what we were calling out but want to keep their jobs. Voting as much as possible helps these people point out trends that may not win elections but voting can win over those on the fence.

While hunting with a retired ATF special taskforce officer out of Seattle, he said the largest source of illegal weapons is from the friends and relatives of known criminals. He stated that by researching time to crime and tracing purchases they found it was generally only a few people making the straw purchases. Most effective tactic a police force can use to identify weapon sources.
He admitted that doesn't fit in a sound bite. The National Shooting Sports Foundation has more information. They represent the firearms industry.

Ok back to the "If @jburtt wants to give up (their) gun rights", I can support that cuz opinions happen.
It's a fair bet that most people on a firearms forum would not share that opinion.

Feeling all alone in the struggle for maintaining gun rights? Check out the NSSF.
This organization is rational, non political, and a great source of information.

 

[ynotAZ]

WhiskyTahoe, Thanks and it was also a pleasure working with you albeit in a battle that is going even worse. I recommend people who want to take action or help, at least in Arizona, join AZCDL @ AZCDL.org. Options for national organizations are the Second Amendment Foundation, or Gun Owners of America.

NSSF is a great organization but it's a trade association limited to the firearms dealers, ranges, media, and manufacturers, not folks who are just enthusiasts, like us.

 

[jburtt]

I didn't mean to rub everyone wrong here, but knew it would be a possibility. I'm not at all saying that I want to get rid of my guns because the government told me so. The guns I've sold off were because I needed money more than something I shoot once every few years. I can't justify owning guns anymore than I can owning silver/gold bullion. I recognize that paper money may become obsolete and there may be value there, but I'm not idle rich. Same with guns. If I had all my bills paid off, retirement plan filled and ready, 100k in savings, then yeah, having 50 guns would be cool. But that isn't my reality, and i don't have the time or energy or passion about it to put all my spare minutes into a political fight that I feel is ultimately going to be lost. Does that mean I'll turn over whatever I have left when the time comes? Lol.....hardly. I won't ever get rid of all my guns unless they are forcibly removed. But the extras I've got, or ones I won't be using again, I'll sell. Family guns, gifts I've been given, a couple pistols, etc will stay with me as long as they can.

The use of the forum is community to sell, maybe acquire something cool again at some point, and who knows what else. I'm not likely going to be here every day forever, but I've always been a huge forum person. I'm probably on 50+ different types for all sorts of interests I have had, or still have.

 

[Whisky Tahoe]

I won't ever get rid of all my guns unless they are forcibly removed.

Sounds like a very good reason to vote in November.

 

[smaug]

I didn't mean to rub everyone wrong here, but knew it would be a possibility. I'm not at all saying that I want to get rid of my guns because the government told me so. The guns I've sold off were because I needed money more than something I shoot once every few years. I can't justify owning guns anymore than I can owning silver/gold bullion. I recognize that paper money may become obsolete and there may be value there, but I'm not idle rich. Same with guns. If I had all my bills paid off, retirement plan filled and ready, 100k in savings, then yeah, having 50 guns would be cool. But that isn't my reality, and i don't have the time or energy or passion about it to put all my spare minutes into a political fight that I feel is ultimately going to be lost. Does that mean I'll turn over whatever I have left when the time comes? Lol.....hardly. I won't ever get rid of all my guns unless they are forcibly removed. But the extras I've got, or ones I won't be using again, I'll sell. Family guns, gifts I've been given, a couple pistols, etc will stay with me as long as they can.

The use of the forum is community to sell, maybe acquire something cool again at some point, and who knows what else. I'm not likely going to be here every day forever, but I've always been a huge forum person. I'm probably on 50+ different types for all sorts of interests I have had, or still have.

My impression was that you had surrendered, given up the fight. My intent was to encourage you to understand the historical eventual outcomes of that kind of surrender, should everybody act in the same way. And I admit, I, too, am somewhat pessimistic, and yet I believe that the importance of the fight for our Human Rights and Freedoms, as well their expression in our Constitution and Bill of Rights, are of paramount importance to the survival of our country. Despite Political expediency and "correctness", Socialist undermining, woke culture, fearmongering, Educational systemic brainwashing, and pure intellectual laziness, I still think that with the right parenting and examples we may still be able to save ourselves from the megalithic oppressive society that I fear may be coming our way. One way or another, I don't plan to see it happen without opposition.